Talk:Pierre Louis Maupertuis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. |
Dear fellow Maupertuis students,
I have added a good piece stating the case for his elevation to the exalted status of founder of modern evolutionary theory. I have been pretty careful about the particulars and I hope it is all accurate, reliable, unbiased, and not too boring!
I do hope that the section will be retained without too much alteration. I am fairly confident it is clearly written as of my umpteenth revision 2:47 P.M., 03/07/05.
If anyone has a good counterargument, I would love to hear it!
Randall
As I mentioned on your talk page, some of your edits to Pierre Louis Maupertuis are not really in keeping with Wikipedia's style. You modified your original edits to remove first-person narrative and signing your name, but there are still issues of:
Some of your paragraphs read like an essay arguing a point of view. That's fine for articles in periodicals or scholarly journals that publish original research, but it's not in keeping with Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia and not a journal for submitting original scholarly research).
-- Curps 20:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] tell me what you think.....
I was thinking of an addition to the bottom of the Maupertuis page. let me know if it is neutral point of view/informative/doesn't take up too much room on your server/etc.
"The chief objection to Maupertuis' priority is that the passage is isolated and taken out of its context. Also, critics contend that Maupertuis was involved in a debate from a different century (epigenesis vs. preformationism) and that it is anachronistic to read, in the above passage, an expression of the concept of natural selection.
Venus Physique is a book about embryology and is chiefly concerned with debate regarding preformationism and epigenesis. In this work he is credited as the first researcher to follow a human hereditary trait, specifically polydactyly, in its passage through a pedigree. This attempt, and some of the accompanying discussion, foreshadows portions of Gregor Mendel's work by more than a century. The comments on evolution, while admittedly cursory, are most naturally viewed, in the context of the text and the historical debate, as simple deductions following necessarily from those ideas expressed in the other portions of the work (i.e. the work he did on embryology, developmental biology, and "genetics")."
I also plan to add to the last little statement, the one on desmond king-hele and his reference to david hume, that king-hele also states (ouch my aching memory!!!!) "While Maupertuis did not offer any real examples of evolution/natural selection... he did explain the theory in great detail". King-Hele said something to that affect...I am without notes at the moment.
Also, the page needs to add more links to other wikipedia stuff. I will try that too someday!
As for original work, I apologize for being so original, but I cannot find someone to give me a PhD/money/a printing press. If I had any one of these I would not be bothering the "wikipedia-editor-guy", and I would be able to cite my own printed academic writings as valid, objective, and neutral sources.
Also, I have taken a number of notes on the subject and I plan to have significant documentation for every assertion I make. At the moment I am without my notes, but I plan on reading them again soon! Perhaps the next time I edit/discuss the Maupertuis page I will be prepared!
- Your proposed paragraph seems reasonable to me (I am, btw, the anonymous user responsible for most of the biography portion), although it does straddle border between original research and secondary research. However, it seems to be consistent with what Mary Terrall writes on the subject in her book (which I take to be the current pretty much undisputed authority on Maupertuis). The evolution section in general could use some serious editing, but I didn't want to tackle that because I haven't read the relevant books. --ragesoss 08:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Principle of least action
I've hacked together (hacked being the operative word) a history of the principle of least action, including a short coverage of the Konig/Berlin academy affair. Interested parties are invited to correct/expand that article. linas 01:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
